DOCSLIB.ORG

Unpopular Sovereignty: Rhodesian Independence and African Decolonization'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unpopular Sovereignty: Rhodesian Independence and African Decolonization' H-Diplo Onslow on White, 'Unpopular Sovereignty: Rhodesian Independence and African Decolonization' Review published on Saturday, December 12, 2015 Luise White. Unpopular Sovereignty: Rhodesian Independence and African Decolonization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 368 pp. $90.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-226-23505-9; $30.00 (paper), ISBN 978-0-226-23519-6. Reviewed by Sue Onslow (University of London)Published on H-Diplo (December, 2015) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach As Luise White points out at the start of her latest bookUnpopular Sovereignty: Rhodesian Independence and African Decolonization, there are no archives for independent Rhodesia. Given that starting proviso, the author has done a remarkable job amassing and assessing the disparate material from the Southern Rhodesia/Rhodesian Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) era: oral history; parliamentary debates; newspaper archives; the National Archives in Kew, London; the presidential libraries of Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford; the Commonwealth Secretariat in London; the now closed material from the Rhodesian Army Association (formerly held at the now defunct museum of the British Empire and Commonwealth); and documents from Rhodesia’s prime minister Ian Smith’s office originally smuggled down to Rhodes University in 1978 in Operation Geraldine. (These boxes were packed into two Dakotas, flown down to Grahamstown where they landed on a school’s playing field during the holidays and hurried into the Cory Library, which was ostensibly “closed for redecoration” at the time.) This energetic and in-depth research, together with her encyclopedic knowledge of secondary works on Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and deep understanding of the broader field of African decolonization, results in a work of dense scholarship which offers a refreshingly different “take” on the complicated history of Zimbabwe’s decolonization. This book is best read with a sound prior knowledge of Rhodesian/Zimbabwean history, as it adds immense detail to the picture. The essential approach of this work is Rhodesian/Zimbabwean “exceptionalism,” and White tracks with care the particular continuities and discontinuities of the country’s unique path to black majority rule in 1979-80. With consistent rigor, she rejects sharp differentiation of before and after drawn by other researchers, as well as a heroic nation-building narrative (adopted, incidentally, by both “winners” and “losers” in the memoir literature on the Rhodesian civil war, and a considerable number of historians of either side). This is a detailed study in decolonization, with all the uneven, unforeseen, stop-start inputs; fears and preoccupations; convictions and hesitations; and processes that decolonization entailed. At the outset, the author addresses the importance and input of ideas in the origins and maintenance of the Rhodesian state. White tackles the problematic concept of the political imagination of Rhodesia through its varied and multiple guises; a “myth-scape,” which like all myths, was inherently unstable, and required constant reinvention by the territory’s power contestants to generate and sustain support from their identified constituencies. And again there was the rub: how were the occupants of the territorial space of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe to be categorized and valorized in the political arena? In contrast to a determined discourse in which politics in Africa was something that should be Citation: H-Net Reviews. Onslow on White, 'Unpopular Sovereignty: Rhodesian Independence and African Decolonization'. H-Diplo. 12-12-2015. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/reviews/101653/onslow-white-unpopular-sovereignty-rhodesian-independence-and-african Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-Diplo conducted without reference to race, in the case of Rhodesia race was a foundational element to this particular nation-state-building enterprise. But this was not simply as a state based on racial hegemony. White concentrates on the fissures and fractures in the political ideas that specific settlers used to rule. So, rather than a standard “white settler”-constructed narrative, this book argues that white settlers, white residents, and whites just passing through (as she repeats, Josiah Brownell’s careful research highlights that between 1957 and 1979, 256,000 whites moved to Rhodesia and 246,000 left) “utilized a hodgepodge of institutions, law and practices ... to maintain what they refused to call white rule, but instead relabeled as responsible government by civilized people” (p. 4).[1] White draws out the tangled and contradictory components of being “a Rhodesian”: not simply citizen, subject, resident. Nor was emotional connection and inhabitation enough. Being white was never in and of itself sufficient to rule. Rhodesia in the UDI years was never therefore a racial state, bent on white minority hegemony “for 1000 years”—even as Smith declared these words, his civil servants standing at the back of the room in this news conference were laughing behind their hands at the absurdity of the claim.[2] A central argument of this book is focused on who could and should vote, and the associated more nebulous concept of citizenship, with its expected and conferred rights and obligations to the state. Crucially, White concentrates on how this was deployed by whites who lived in the country. In doing so, she expands Frank Cooper’s argument, that citizenship offered to Africans “was an imaginary in itself sometimes of rights and obligations but almost always of conditions of belonging and membership.”[3] A surprise of this book is how late the argument of universal franchise became accepted in African nationalist opinion—itself fluid, fractured, and contradictory. So, this is indeed an uneven story for African politics, too. In a neat turn of phrase, White reminds the reader that a great deal of African politics took place in Rhodesian jails. The focus of the book is determinedly on the dynamics of discussion within the country itself. It rejects other historiographical “binaries” and provides the welcome analysis in drawing parallels, contrasts, and connections between white political discourses and the narrative and range within African political nationalist opinion. In her examination of Rhodesian constitutional history, White consistently stresses that white and black politics often overlapped or were entangled. Rhodesia becoming Zimbabwe was a bundle of rhetorical and situational contradictions: the supposedly anti- establishment Rhodesian Front and its supporters in defiance of the British government in London, but supposedly not the queen, until 1969; and their determined emphasis on the maintenance of existing domestic structures and institutions thereafter. The chapters are devoted to detailed examination of changing official attitudes of voter eligibility and entitlement in the later days of the federation, and the reasoning behind the 1961 constitution. White does a good job highlighting the debates on a universal franchise versus the advantages and requirements of a qualified franchise and the reasoning underpinning convictions: that voting was not an innate right, but “a skill” (p. 59). While this section is arcane, White underlines that it was the very idea of expanding the African franchise that caused white political parties to contract. This hardening of white extremist attitudes on the supposed impossibility of African self-rule predated the eruption of violence in the Congo. White carefully tracks the twists and turns of constitution making and breaking through the 1969 constitution, the Pearce Commission, the abortive Geneva conference, the Anglo-American proposals, and the Internal Settlement of 1978. Furthermore, White goes into detail on the “corrupt electoral practices” of elections of Zimbabwe/Rhodesia of April 1979, which provided Citation: H-Net Reviews. Onslow on White, 'Unpopular Sovereignty: Rhodesian Independence and African Decolonization'. H-Diplo. 12-12-2015. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/reviews/101653/onslow-white-unpopular-sovereignty-rhodesian-independence-and-african Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 2 H-Diplo a crucial backdrop to the two delegations of the Patriotic Front’s negotiating stance at Lancaster House in the autumn of 1979. As White points out, none of these commissions or conferences had managed to make race irrelevant, but they progressively ushered in practices of constitution making and advancement of African rights, although each contained the means to limit Africans’ ability to exercise their rights. The detailed discussions of constitution making at Lancaster House are a welcome addition to the literature, and underline the unlikely success of this three-month-long negation marathon. She debunks the later claims of African nationalist leaders that they had “successfully” secured a universal franchise in the independence constitution, and deals firmly with the debates around the reserved seats for the white minority. I agree with White’s emphasis on the input of “outer” diplomacy from the Front Line States presidents (who were not, of course, present at the plenary sessions); the extent to which they were consulted; their prior approval sought; and the impact of their visits to London at critical junctures. The situation in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe by late 1979, indeed in the southern African region, by this point, had reached a hurting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2143Rdmeeting: 30 Apriw&Jfs~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW YORK
    UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL RECORDS THIRTY-FOURTH YEAR MAY2 8 1982 2143rdMEETING: 30 ApRIw&jfs~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ NEW YORK CONTENTS Page Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/2 143) . % . Adoption of the agenda . , . Question concerning the situation in Southern Rhodesia: Letter dated 26 April 1979 from the Charge d’Afkires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Ivory Coast to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/13276) . NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. j ~Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/. .) are normally published in quarterly Supplements of the O@iaZ Records of the Security Council. The date of the document indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is given. The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with .a system adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of ResoZutions and Decisions of the Security Council The new system, which has been applied retroactively to resolutions adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative on that date. 2143rd MEETING Held in New York on Monday 30 April 1979, at 3.30 p.m. President: Mr. Ole ALGARD (Norway). At the invitation of the President, Mr. Tlou (Botswana) and Mr. Komatina (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved Present: The representatives of the following States: for them at the side of the Council chamber. Bangladesh, Bolivia, China, Czechoslovakia, France, Gabon, Jamaica, Kuwait, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, 3. The PRESIDENT: Members of the Council have Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of before them document S/13282, which contains the text Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of of a draft resolution sponsored by Bangladesh, Bolivia, America, Zambia.
    [Show full text]
  • February 17. 1965. February 17. 1965. BRITISH
    February 17. 1965. February 17. 1965. BRITISH IMPERIALISM NAKED AT WORK CREATING ANOTHERTSHOIMBE i K ANOTHER CONGO IN SOUTERT RHODESIA. On three different occasions Britain made special pronouncements about a visit to Southern Rhodesia. First, In Iusaka during the Zambia Uhuru Celebrations in October 1964, Mr Arthur Bottomley, in no uncertain terms told Ian Smith and indeed the world at large that he can only go to visit Southern Rhodesia if only he is permitted to see both Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole President of Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and Mr. Joshua Nkomo, life President of the People's Caretakecr Council (PCC). Rev. Sithole was at that time and ,till is in Salisbury Central Prison serving a political prison sentence for offences allegedly committed under the notorious and iniquitous Law and Order (Maintenance) Act during the implementation of ZANU's Campaign to resist and prevent unilateral declaration of independence and to gain majority rule. Mr. Nkomo was and still is in restriction at Gonakudzingwa Restriction Camp. Second: Mr. Harold Wilson, Britain's Prime Minister confirmed in the House of Commons in London that Mr. Bottomley can o to Southern Rhodesia if only he is ermitted to see both Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole then and -till in Salisbury Central Prison servibg the same Political Prison sentence, and Mr. J. NKOMO then and still at Gonakudzingwa Restriction Camp. Third: Mr. Arthur Bottomley, through the Minister of State, Mr. G. Hughes assured ZANU delegation to London recently that he will not go to S. Rhodesia until and only if he is assured that he will see both Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The Woman Behind Robert Mugabe Kyra Ward After thirty-seven years of power Robert Mugabe has been ousted in a military coup. Mugabe is one of the most controversial leaders in recent history. Heralded by some as the emancipator of the British colony of Rhodesia, now modern day Zimbabwe, and by others as another African dictator (Winter, 2017), Mugabe has regardless been important personality in modern African politics. However, Mugabe’s latest action, which has inspired the protests in Zimbabwe that have resulted in a coup, seem to be orchestrated by his wife, Grace Mugabe. Grace Mugabe is 52 (ABC/wires, 2017), forty- one years Mr. Mugabe’s junior and one of the most powerful figures in the country. Nicknamed ‘Gucci Grace’, ‘The First Shopper’ and more recently ‘DisGrace’, Grace Mugabe has gained herself the reputation of being an excessive spender with lavish taste. It is speculated that she once spent upwards of 75,000$ on a shopping spree in Paris (Martin, 2017). While frivolous spending is not in itself necessarily bad, Mrs. Mugabe’s spending habits vilify her in a country that has been enduring an economic crisis (Dendere, 2017). This has gained her many enemies in her husband’s cabinet as well as among the public. Although her shopping may be a topic of contention for the citizens bearing the burden of the slow economy and lack of money for food, up until now, it had not created enough animosity amongst the public and military to revolt against their once beloved leader. So, if her spending habits haven’t caused people to revolt why is the coup being staged now? Earlier this week, Robert Mugabe fired his long-standing friend and vice- president Emmerson Mnangagwa, who fled to South Africa (Plaut, 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Use of Bacteriological and Chemical Agents During Zimbabwe’S Liberation War of 1965–80 by Rhodesian Forces
    Third World Quarterly, Vol 23, No 6, pp 1159–1179, 2002 The history of the use of bacteriological and chemical agents during Zimbabwe’s liberation war of 1965–80 by Rhodesian forces IAN MARTINEZ ABSTRACT In 1979 the largest recorded outbreak of anthrax occurred in Rhodesia, present day Zimbabwe. The incident, widely known in Africa and in intelligence circles is not widely known in the USA or Europe. At the time Rhodesia was fighting a guerilla war against black nationalist insurgents. Rhodesia first accused the nationalist side of using anthrax as a weapon. In allegations that surfaced in 1998—and which persist to this day—external researchers and the current government of Zimbabwe insist that the outbreak in 1978–80 was anything but benign. They argue that the original outbreak was the result of a calculated move by the Rhodesian government with the duplicitous acknowledgment of apartheid South Africa. Furthermore, the government alleges that a current outbreak is the work of disgruntled white farmers in the country. The allegations over the 1979–80 outbreak are given credence by the acknow- ledgement by Ken Flower, Chief of Rhodesia’s Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO), and by CIO Officer Henrik Ellert that the white minority regime of Ian Smith used biological and chemical weapons against the guerillas, against rural blacks to prevent their support of the guerillas and against cattle to reduce rural food stocks. The current government and researchers have drawn inferences from his statements to show that the unusual outbreak in
    [Show full text]
  • In the Lives of Most Nations There Comes a Moment When a Stand Has to Be Made for Principle, Whatever the Consequence
    “In the lives of most nations there comes a moment when a stand has to be made for principle, whatever the consequence. This moment has come for Rhodesia. I pray, and I hope other Rhodesians will pray today, that our Government will be given the wisdom and the strength to bring Rhodesia safely through. To us has been given the privilege of being the first Western nation in the last two decades to have the determination and fortitude to say: “So far and no further”. “We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization and Christianity and in the spirit of this belief, we have this day assumed our sovereign independence”. Prime Minister Ian Smith. 11th November 1965. Flight Lieutenant Ian Smith Ian Smith was born in the small Rhodesian mining town of Selukwe on April 8th, 1919. During his schooldays, both at Selukwe and later at the senior co-educational boarding school Chaplin, the sporting field was his main attraction. Ian Smith remembers that “I was an absolute lunatic about sport... I think I was captain of every team there was in the school and I think I did overdo this at the expense of my academic career”. He invariably won the “Victor Ladorum” award at the annual competitions and in 1937 was captain of the rugby, cricket and tennis teams as well as Head Prefect. In 1938 he gained entry to Rhodes University at the age of sixteen, ‘I came to my senses. I suddenly realised there were other things in life besides sport. So I cut some of it out.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence
    Copyrighted material – ISBN 9781403979070 Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence An International History Carl Peter Watts pal-watts-book.indb iii 10/29/12 9:48 AM Copyrighted material – ISBN 9781403979070 RHODESIA’S UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE Copyright © Carl Peter Watts, 2012. All rights reserved. First published in December 2012 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United States— a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978- 1- 4039- 7907- 0 Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Watts, Carl Peter, 1971– Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence : an international history / Carl Peter Watts. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-4039-7907-0 (alk. paper) 1. Zimbabwe—History—1965-1980. 2. Zimbabwe—Politics and government—1965–1979. 3. Zimbabwe—Foreign relations—Great Britain. 4. Great Britain—Foreign relations—Zimbabwe. 5. Great Britain—Politics and government—1964–1979. 6. Great Britain—Foreign relations— Commonwealth countries. 7. Commonwealth countries—Foreign relations— Great Britain. 8. Great Britain—Foreign economic relations—United States. 9. United States—Foreign relations—Great Britain. I. Title. DT2981.W38 2012 968.9104—dc23 2012040839 A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Lover Education Pack
    EDUCATION PACK 2020 Thanks to our supporters 2020 BLACK LOVER CONTENTS BLACK LOVER Introduction Cast Interviews P.04 P.24 Auckland Theatre Company receives principal and core funding from: Synopsis Design P.06 P.28 About the Setting Post-show Activities P.10 P.38 About the Playwright Resources and P.16 Additional Reading ATC Creative Learning also thanks the ATC Patrons and P.39 the ATC Supporting Acts for their ongoing generosity Themes - Religion & Beliefs P.15 ATC Creative Learning P.40 Supported by our university partner - AUT Sir Garfield Todd P.18 Curriculum Links P.41 Director’s Process P.22 Venue: Q Theatre, Loft 350 Queen Street, Auckland Please note School Matinee: Thursday 19 & 26 March and Thursday 2 April at 11am Running Time: 75 minutes, without an interval Photography or recording of any kind is strictly prohibited. • Post-Show In the theatre immediately after the performance • Eating and drinking in the auditorium is strongly discouraged. Forum: (15 - 20mins) • Please make sure all cell phones are turned off. Suitability: This production is suitable for Year Levels 12 & 13 Advisory: Contains sexual references and descriptions of violence • Please don’t bring school bags to the theatre. 2 1 2020 BLACK LOVER CAST Garfield Todd — Cameron Rhodes Steady — Simbarashe Matshe CREATIVE Playwright — Stanley Makuwe Director — Roy Ward Set and Costume Designer — Rachael Walker Lighting Designer — Rachel Marlow Sound Designer — Sean Lynch PRODUCTION Production Manager — Andrew Malmo Company Manager (Maternity Cover) — Nicole Sarah Technical
    [Show full text]
  • Henry Kissinger: Negotiating Black Majority Rule in Southern Africa
    Henry Kissinger: Negotiating Black Majority Rule in Southern Africa James K. Sebenius R. Nicholas Burns Robert H. Mnookin L. Alexander Green Working Paper 17-051 Henry Kissinger: Negotiating Black Majority Rule in Southern Africa James K. Sebenius R. Nicholas Burns Harvard Business School Harvard Kennedy School Robert H. Mnookin L. Alexander Green Harvard Law School Harvard Business School Working Paper 17-051 Copyright © 2016 by James K. Sebenius Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Henry Kissinger: Negotiating Black Majority Rule in Southern Africa by James K. Sebenius, R. Nicholas Burns, Robert H. Mnookin, and L. Alexander Green* December 9, 2016 v1.2 Abstract: In 1976, United States Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger conducted a series of intricate, multiparty negotiations in Southern Africa to persuade white Rhodesian leader Ian Smith to accede to black majority rule. Conducted near the end of President Gerald Ford’s term in office, against substantial U.S. domestic opposition, Kissinger’s efforts culminated in Smith’s public announcement that he would accept majority rule within two years. This set the stage for the later Lancaster House negotiations which resulted in the actual transition to black majority rule. The account in this working paper carefully describes—but does not analyze nor draw lessons from —these challenging negotiations. Forthcoming papers will provide analysis and derive general insights from Kissinger’s negotiations to end white minority rule in Rhodesia.
    [Show full text]
  • “Honoured More in the Breach Than in the Observance”: Economic Sanctions on Rhodesia1 and International Response, 1965 to 1979
    “HONOURED MORE IN THE BREACH THAN IN THE OBSERVANCE”: ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ON RHODESIA1 AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE, 1965 TO 1979 A. S. Mlambo Department of Historical and Heritage Studies University of Pretoria Abstract The United Nations Security Council passed a series of resolutions condemning Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) in 1965, culminating in Resolution 253 of 1968 imposing comprehensive mandatory international sanctions on Rhodesia. With a few exceptions, notably South Africa and Portugal, most member states supported the resolution and pledged their commitment to uphold and enforce the measures. Yet, most countries, including those at the forefront of imposing sanctions against Rhodesia, broke sanctions or did little to enforce them. An examination of the records of the Security Council Committee Established in Pursuance of Resolution 253 (1968) Concerning the Question of Southern Rhodesia (the Sanctions Committee) shows that sanctions against Rhodesia were honoured more in the breach than in the observance. Keywords: Sanctions, UDI, United Nations, Security Council, Sanctions busting, Ian Smith, Harold Wilson Introduction On November 11, 1965, the Rhodesia Front Government of Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith unilaterally declared independence (UDI) from Britain in response to the colonial authority’s reluctance to grant independence to the country under white minority rule. Facing mounting pressure to use force to topple the illegal regime in Rhodesia from the Afro-Asian lobby at the United Nations (UN), Britain opted, to impose economic sanctions on Rhodesia, instead. British Prime Minister Harold Wilson confidently predicted at the time 1 The names Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia are used interchangeably in this paper. While the UDI leaders referred to the country only as ‘Rhodesia’, the United Nations continued to call it ‘Southern Rhodesia’ throughout the UDI period.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr. Wilson's Visit to Rhodesia. Mr
    Keesing's Record of World Events (formerly Keesing's Contemporary Archives), Volume 11, December, 1965 Rhodesia, Page 21087 © 1931-2006 Keesing's Worldwide, LLC - All Rights Reserved. Mr. Wilson's Visit to Rhodesia. Mr. Harold Wilson's visit to Rhodesia took place from Oct. 25-30 and led to an understanding by both Governments on the establishment of a Royal Commission without, however, any agreement on its terms of reference. In view of this, the British Government accepted a Rhodesian proposal that the people of Rhodesia should be consulted as to whether or not they accepted independence on the basis of the 1961 Constitution, but no agreement was reached on how this should be done. While negotiations were proceeding, the Rhodesian Government on Nov. 5 declared a state of emergency throughout the country. The British Government nevertheless pursued the idea of consultation of the Rhodesian people through the proposed Royal Commission, and Sir Hugh Beadle, the Rhodesian Chief Justice and chairman-designate of the Commission, travelled to London on Nov. 8 for discussions, though he did not have the authority of the Rhodesian Government. Following an exchange of letters between the Queen and the Rhodesian Government on Nov. 9, and a telephone conversation in the early morning of Nov. 11 between Mr. Wilson and Mr. Ian Smith, a declaration of independence was broadcast by Mr. Smith later on Nov. 11. The Governor of Rhodesia immediately repudiated the Rhodesian Government's action, and Mr. Wilson announced in the House of Commons that Mr. Smith's declaration was an illegal act and listed the counter-measures taken, or to be taken, by the British Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Narrative Detachment and Intimacy in Peter Godwin's Mukiwa
    Dealing with a troubled Rhodesian past: Narrative Detachment and Intimacy in Peter Godwin’s Mukiwa: A White Boy in Africa (1996) Cuthbeth Tagwirei Abstract This article argues that one of the challenges white Zimbabwean writers have to deal with in their narratives is a troubled colonial past. In Peter Godwin’s Mukiwa, A White Boy in Africa, there is a plain acknowledgement that Rhodesia had problems of legitimacy, which made the treatment of blacks before and during the war unjustified. Godwin’s rendition of the past is therefore informed by this recognition, compelling the author to employ narrative strategies which make it possible for him to embrace certain aspects of the past while simultaneously distancing himself from others. This analysis of Godwin’s Mukiwa shows how a re-imagined childhood consciousness enables an understanding of the Rhodesian past. Through this narrative strategy, Godwin is supposedly faithful in rendering the past, including its imperfections. Furthermore, the Rhodesian past is depicted as a baneful entity that estranges whites from the Zimbabwean present. Key Words: White Zimbabwean literature; Rhodesia; autobiography; Mukiwa; memory; identity Introduction Through a reading of Mukiwa: A White Boy in Africa (hereafter referred to as Mukiwa), a record of Peter Godwin’s memories of a colonial past in which he was actively involved as a fighter on Ian Smith’s side in defense of white minority, this article explores how the white Zimbabwean narrative deals with a troubled colonial past through story-telling. As the subject-narrator in Mukiwa attests, white Rhodesians fought the wrong war, one which situated them on the wrong side of history.
    [Show full text]
  • Rhodesia to Zimbabwe a Chronology 1830 to 1976
    Rhodesia To Zimbabwe A Chronology 1830 to 1976 by George M. Houser THE AFRICA FUND (Associated with The American Committee on Africa) 305 E. 46th St. * New York, N.Y. 10017 9 Telephone (212) 838-5030 16-~ 16 0N55 7 MASHONALAND NORTH ~ lae KaS / Namibia ~oo 10 T . .. .0 , o ledell ELsv' MASHONALAND OUTH * MILANDS O~on MATABELELANDNORTH *Redd:LU ANClANU.-*-Kt BOTSWANAFotVcri Rs~o~oyo*/ ~For, V'cto,, '..2 Shobon, LKele 1 VICTORI MATABELELAND SOUTH > MOZAMBIQUE SOUTH AFRICA 28 3 Note Provrnces -.- hove no posthon n requlor strvctvre of governmnft Zimbabwe FROM RHODESIA TO ZIMBABWE A conflict of major proportions is now coming to a head in southern Africa, as Africans struggling for a free Zimbabwe confront a white minority government whose sole aim is to protect the political power and economic privilege of the tiny Rhodesian settler population. The white minority numbers less than 280,000 in a population of over 6 million, but it is a minority determined to maintain its power and privilege as long as possible. History, for the white minority, begins with the aggressive expansionism of Cecil Rhodes. His central role in the work of British colonial occupation at the end of the 19th century is reflected in the naming of both Northern Rhodesia (now independent Zambia) and Southern Rhodesia in his honor. The attitude of most white settlers toward African history prior to white occupation is accurately summed up by the white Rhodesian who told a New York Times reporter: "The African has no past, very little present without white or yellow help, and no future of his own." Rhodesian settlers use this argument to justify the history of white minority rule, to explain the present repression of Africans and to project continued white rule into the future.
    [Show full text]